By on February 14, 2012

Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney published an op-ed in the Detroit News calling the auto bailout “crony capitalism on a grand scale.” Boasting of his Michigan roots, Romney takes the Obama administration and the UAW to task for what he suggests is a symbiotic relationship between the two that allowed the union to get stakes in GM and Chrysler. In short, nothing new from the man who is running an election that is a referendum on Obama’s presidency.

Readers of TTAC will recognize that Romney’s explanation of the bailout and his own suggests are a sort of “For Dummies” executive summary of what went on, and his suggestions for improvement, like the feel good rhetoric about the resurgence of the Motor City are nothing we haven’t heard before. Buried towards the end is the one major piece of the article, with Romney suggesting

The shares  [in General Motors belonging to the Treasury] need to be sold in a responsible fashion and the proceeds turned over to the nation’s taxpayers

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

86 Comments on “Mitt Romney Pens Detroit News Op-Ed On Big Three Bailout...”


  • avatar
    vanpressburg

    Chrysler chairman and CEO Sergio Marchionne said “Canadian manufacturing costs are now possibly the most expensive in the world”

    When it comes to cars, Canada and USA are now the most socialist countries in the world.
    How the hell did you get in there?

    • 0 avatar
      aristurtle

      I think Akio Toyoda would laugh at that little quip from Sergio…

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      Sergio’s off the cuff remark is far from the truth. He just needs to look around Europe if he wants to see high costs, strong unions and government intervention.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      And that’s why Toyota builds right hand drive cars in Canada for export back to Japan. Because Toyota loves to waste money by building cars in the most expensive countries in the world to build in.

      And here I thought all these Japanese and European manufacturers opening up plants in the United States to build here and ship elsewhere was a cost cutting measure.

      Hey Sergio, how are Fiat sales going?

      • 0 avatar
        ciddyguy

        Fiat’s sales, at least here in Seattle are doing fine, thankyouverymuch. I saw TWO of them today and THREE last week and perhaps one yesterday at some point and this is becoming a at least a weekly occurrence now.

        And this is barely a year since they began to sell them and all the dealers didn’t get open until late summer so they end up doing 20K or so as of the end of last year.

        They are pretty close to MINI’s numbers if I’m not mistaken.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Ahhh, but those Fiats you saw, did they have barcodes on the windshields as rentals. I am seeing Fiat 500 on rental lots all across the United States.

      • 0 avatar
        ciddyguy

        APaGttH,

        We have 2 local dealers, one in Tacoma, one in Kirkland and I see them often enough that I’m sure MOST of them are sold to the locals, the red one I saw yesterday morning was brand new, had a temporary tag in the back window and I know a bunch of the Primas were sold up this way early last year.

        Besides, if it’s any indication, most of these cars have local plates though the ones I see at work are likely rented that aren’t parked in the parking garages, those that are, are bought right here by the locals. Someone 2 buildings up the hill from my apartment owns a gray sport as I type this.

        The silver one I saw both yesterday and today was I believe rented as it appeared to have a bar-code on the right rear glass from what I could tell from a distance and it was parked in a lot, not in the garage where guests can park as you have to have a parking sticker or a hanging tag off your mirror if a contractor to park in the parking garages.

        Besides, small cars are not unusual around these parts.

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      Are you kidding me?

      Germany is way worse (interesting that the German automakers can’t produce cars fast enough) and the auto unions in Korea make the UAW look like wimps.

      It’s interesting and more than a bit humorous to note that Romney repeatedly attacks the auto bailout and yet has been totally SILENT on the way BIGGER bailout for the Wall Street banks.

      And the problem hasn’t just been the UAW, but bad management at the top, not to mention bloated compensation for top management.

      For instance, Mullaly and Ford Jr. EACH made more than TWICE (totalling $53 million in compensation for 2 guys) than the CEO of VW in 2010 and VW last year had greater profits than Ford, GM and Chrysler COMBINED.

  • avatar
    JCraig

    He gives too much credit to Obama. Bush is not shy about saying he’d bail them out again to save the 1 million + jobs.

    • 0 avatar
      jeoff

      Yes, Bush would have bailed them out again. But would Bush have given the unions a 55% stake in chrysler and pushed secured creditors to the side? My guess is no.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “pushed secured creditors to the side”

        It’s a bit sad that almost three years have passed, and some of you still don’t understand what happened.

      • 0 avatar
        harshciygar

        I don’t see why giving the unions a huge stake in the companies was such a bad thing.

        In theory, it will encourage labor and management to work together towards the greater good of the company; that is long term, sustainable profits and a well-compensated workforce.

        Human nature always mucks it up, but it looks more and more to me like Bush/Obama saved the American auto industry. Since the gov’t and Republicans have had no problem bailing out railroads, airlines, and their buddies at big oil, I think this was definitely a success story.

        Romney needs to shut his pie-hole, because he probably would have done the same thing too. Before he didn’t. lol.

      • 0 avatar
        Vance Torino

        This being Mitt Romney, he probably didn’t really want to connect with Michigan’s manufacturing roots. Also known as REAL PEOPLE who pay REAL TAXES in Michigan.

        I mean, it’s only a vital swing state crucial to any Presidential victory…

        (After that swingiest of swing states, the great state of Ohio. Go Bucks!)

        Old George from AMC is “rambling” in his grave…

        …And Santorum by 4 points. Smells like “Santorum” on the south side of Detroit already…

      • 0 avatar
        boltar

        Employee ownership? Egads, it’s pure communism, we’re all doomed, doomed I say!

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    What secured creditors got pushed to the side? The bondholders lost, but bondholders always lose in a bankruptcy. The bondholders would have gotten close to zilch if GM and Chrysler had gone under. The union trust funds received the majority of the stock because they were the biggest creditors. The union members took “haircuts” far greater than any Wall Street bankers.

    • 0 avatar
      pfingst

      If GM and Chrysler went under the bondholders could have liquidated what was left. The absolute priority rules would have seen to it that they were made as whole as possible before anyone else received repayment; this is one of the things that makes financing corporate debt attractive to investors, who would otherwise require a higher rate of return for their increased risk.

      What the Obama administration did was essentially rewrite the contract between GM and its bondholders on the fly, changing the terms of the deal after it all fell apart, in order to make sure the unions were taken care of first. That’s the problem.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “What the Obama administration did was essentially rewrite the contract between GM and its bondholders on the fly”

        You must have read that, along with the absolute priority argument, on a blog written by someone who doesn’t know much about bankruptcy.

        I’ll quote myself from a comment that I made here over two years ago. The same points still apply:

        I am personally getting tired of the bogus constitution-is-being-destroyed argument. It just shows how the internet can quickly circulate these memes among the uninformed, telling people what they want to hear instead of what’s accurate.

        People don’t seem to understand the bankruptcy court is a court of equity. The purpose of the court is to make the “fair” decision, which can vary from situation to situation.

        The bankruptcy law is somewhat contradictory. On one hand, there is the issue of absolute priority. On the other, courts have ruled that cramdowns are fine if they achieve a higher purpose of reorganization.

        Unfortunately, the right-wing politicos have distorted or misunderstood this. Absolute priority is not absolute, nor is the doctrine of cramdown just because the borrower wants one absolute.

        Creditors lawyers tend to argue that absolute priority is absolute, even though they know that it isn’t absolute in any way whatsoever. Sometimes the argument works and sometimes it doesn’t, and if the lawyers are any good, they know that. If absolute priority was used 100% of the time, there would almost never be a successful Chapter 11 filing, because liabilities almost always exceed assets in these cases.

        The ultimate answer in the real world is that the outcome depends on the situation, and a large deal will tend to result in the debtor getting the benefit. The bankruptcy court has to decide whether there is a social benefit in lenders not being fully repaid, and the answer depends upon what is at stake.

        The scale of the automakers and the availability of DIP financing are really what clinched this; in the case of Chrysler, having a replacement operator pretty much made it a done deal from the start. The bondholders got more than liquidation value, so they have nothing to complain about.

      • 0 avatar
        ClutchCarGo

        @PCH101

        STOP MAKING SENSE!

        This is an election year. Facts and logic keep getting in the way of the narrative.

      • 0 avatar
        boltar

        I laugh in the general direction of anyone who invested in GM or Chrysler bonds in the last 10 years without being aware of the not insignificant risk of loss.

        Yes, if only the government had been willing to see the entire American auto industry collapse, taking the entire economy down after it into the second Great Depression, THEN we could have made a decent return on that investment. It was a near foolproof plan . . . .

      • 0 avatar
        Morea

        “The bankruptcy court has to decide whether there is a social benefit in lenders not being fully repaid, and the answer depends upon what is at stake.”

        A different judge may have seen other, different “social benefits”. Your argument seems hollow.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “A different judge may have seen other, different ‘social benefits’”.

        Unlikely, given the facts of the case.

        “Your argument seems hollow.”

        I’m not providing an argument. I’m telling you how bankruptcy courts operate.

        What I’ve offered is factual, not an opinion. Bankruptcy courts do not rely strictly and solely upon the doctrine of absolute priority. You may have read such a claim on some wingnut blog, but that is simply false.

        The minimum requirement is the creditors get from a reorganization (11) what they would have obtained from a liquidation (7). And in this case, they did. Those among you who are bellyaching about secured creditors losing priority simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • 0 avatar
        Morea

        You seem to posit a commonly held standard for what constitutes a “social benefit.” I do not believe a widely held standard exists in the US today for what benefits society. Hence all the anger in some quarters regarding the bailout. (Similar arguments can be made on what constitutes paying a “fair share” in taxes.) When terms lack common, consensus meaning discussion is futile. This seems too be the root cause of your frustration with the discussion of this topic on TTAC.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “I do not believe a widely held standard exists in the US today for what benefits society”

        Bankruptcy courts consider economic factors such as unemployment. This tendency would naturally favor large companies with deep ties to the domestic economy and large workforces, and would not favor small businesses that don’t produce much benefit.

        In this case, there was no cogent reason for the bankruptcy to reject the reorganization plan. The creditors received at least what they would have received from a liquidation, so that test was met.

        “Hence all the anger in some quarters regarding the bailout.”

        The anger is driven largely by know-nothings who can’t even get the facts straight.

        If someone can articulate a good argument against the bailouts, that’s fine. But these bogus interpretations of law, which are just factually wrong on their face, suggest that the arguments aren’t very compelling. If one has to make stuff up in order to “prove” his case, then his case is probably not worth much.

      • 0 avatar
        Morea

        OK, thanks, I think I understand now.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    I believe the employees had priority claims over the bondholders, though the trust funds were in the same class.

  • avatar

    I SUPPORT THE BAILOUT OF THE AUTO COMPANIES.

    The only reason the Big 3′s sales plummeted was because of the sudden credit crisis which caught us all by surprise. No longer able to make NINJA loans or subprime loans, all the companies everywhere felt the sudden recession of business.

    Though the Republicans would have let the Big 3 go into Chapter 11, they would have NEVER come out. They would have had no access to credit and would have been liquidated.

    The sudden loss of hundreds of thousands of American auto jobs would have been felt worldwide because parts manufacturers would have taken a massive hit immediately. The truth is, no auto company wanted the Big 3 to go under – especially Honda and Toyota.

    ultimately, Romney is just another pencilneck fast-talking politician who can’t appease the religious right and is saying anything he can to appease the “Ron Paul Conservatives” who actually believe the rhetoric coming from Ron Paul – who has no chance at the presidency and whose 15 minutes of fame IS OVER.

    Obama is gonna WALTZ back into office on election day because the Republican party is pathetic and in disarray. They should have protected Herman Cain and supported him, but, they blew him off for Gingrich who has already IMPLODED. LOL.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      And lets follow the money at GM.

      In August of 2008, who owned Chrysler? Cerberus. Who owned GMAC? Cerberus.

      Cerberus, and lets remember Cerberus was a well funded private enterprise, not a publicly traded company, wanted to unload Chrysler. They were in talks for GM to merge with Chrysler, plenty in the press about it.

      GM leadership looked at themselves and concluded that if you get a rock, and tie a heavier rock to it, you’ll just sink faster. So they told Cerberus to go pound.

      Then what happened next?

      Cerberus turned to GMAC and said if your FICO score is below 720, no GMAC loans for you! Dealers? Your floor financing is frozen. No more floor financing to buy inventory.

      So lets recap. Cerberus wanted to force a GM Chrysler merger. Cerberus cut off almost all financing to both GMAC dealers for floor financing and buyers for credit, and ended leases, and did it before the near equity implosion of 9/14.

      Would it have changed anything? Hard to say. But it certainly didn’t help having Cerberus standing on GM’s financing windpipe going, so, you want to merger now?

      • 0 avatar

        Cerberus was a Limited Liability Corporation who was attempting to do what it could to stay afloat. The Credit Crisis had been eating away at these companies far earlier than 2006. They just didn’t realize it till the banks started collapsing.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      GM and Chrysler had been losing money hand-over-fist for years. Blaming the financial crisis of 2008 is convenient, but inaccurate. They had been losing money and market share for years because they made crappy vehicles.

      And please note that Ford was never going to file for bankruptcy.

      • 0 avatar
        bd2

        Ford would have filed for bankruptcy if they hadn’t managed to hock all their assets and take out loans for everything they were worth when they did.

        GM was actually in better shape than Ford (due in large part to the GM’s thriving China market where Ford was not even a player), but by the time they turned to banks to get loans, the credit market had completely froze.

        Also, Ford took nearly $6 billion in basically zero interest loans from the govt. and Ford Credit got BAILED out and without Ford Credit getting bailed out, Ford would have gone under.

        Ford also would have gone under if GM and Chrysler had went kaput b/c they share many of the same suppliers; and even with all the $$ that Ford managed to borrow, they came very close to running out of $$ (having less than a year’s worth of funds left) if the auto sales hadn’t recovered when they did.

        Even Ford execs will tell you that the Cash for Clunkers program was a lifesaver for Ford.

        Personally, I don’t like any of this but I much rather see the auto industry bailed out to save vital manufacturing jobs than to have seen the Wall St. banks (and commercial banks) bailed out since they were the ones who started the whole mess by bundling and “securitizing” mortgages and touting them as safe, can’t miss investments and basically just engage in financial engineering these days.

      • 0 avatar
        Joe McKinney

        GM, Ford and Chrylser had last earned a profit in 2005. By the time the credit meltdown happened in 2008 they had been losing money for three years. The GM and Chrysler bankruptcies would have happened anyway, the credit crisis just sped up the process.

        Those of us who have been around TTAC for a while will recall that all of this was well documented in Farago’s Death Watch series.

      • 0 avatar
        acuraandy

        @geeber: Ford didn’t have to file for bankruptcy. They realized they had too many brands, was spread too thin, and cut ‘the fat’ ALL ON THEIR OWN. They didn’t need Bush 43 to force them.

        To this end also, they also realized they were building shit cars for a long time, so they decided, again ALL ON THEIR OWN, to build them better; as well as bring over some of their Euro models that have been refined to a point.

        BTW, GM has the Caprice (for cops anyhow). When will Ford Austrailia bring the Falcon to the US? The Taurus Interceptor isn’t exactly replacing the Panther as Law Enforcement’s first choice.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        A point that should not be ignored is that the failure of a company would not have completely destroyed demand. If one player had bowed out, its market share would have been diverted to the remaining players, thus boosting their sales and possibly allowing them to stave off elimination.

        It is not unreasonable to think that if GM & Chrysler had completely imploded, Ford sales would have skyrocketed becoming the #1 seller in America by a wide margin. Or, they may have failed, too. No one has a crystal ball, not even the ‘experts.’

        The bailout was effective at something very important–reduced variability/uncertainty. Things may have been better or worse without it (IMO, worse), but the fact is that the bailout kept things closer to ‘normal,’ and that itself has value.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Hey Mitt, the Bush Administration bailed out the auto industry, and handed off their doctrine to the Obama Administration which followed the same policy. Don’t let history get in the way.

    Oh, and if Bush could do it over, he’d bail them out again.

    Says who? Well Bush…

    http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LYZU9Q1A74E901-1KCAE2P3C0ETMK3HS50MAVQE14

    …“I didn’t want there to be 21 percent unemployment,” Bush said in a speech yesterday to cap the annual National Automobile Dealers Association convention, attended by more than 20,000 people. “I didn’t want to gamble. I didn’t want history to look back and say, ‘Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.’ And so I said, ‘no depression.’”

    The Bush administration provided loans to GM and Chrysler starting with $4 billion to each company in December 2008 and January 2009. Bush eventually provided $17.4 billion in aid to the automakers before Barack Obama’s administration expanded the rescue of the companies to $62 billion.

    Obama has cited the assistance given to the auto industry as an example of policy that protected U.S. jobs. Republican presidential candidates including Mitt Romney have criticized the moves by Bush and Obama as bailouts that interfered with private markets and contributed to the national deficit.

    “I’d make the same decision again if I had to,” Bush, 65, told Stephen Wade, the dealers association’s outgoing chairman…

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    I have never seen anything to show that the bondholders would have done better with liquidation. Many of these bondholders were sharks who bought their positions for pennies to the dollar of the original face value of the obligation. It is ridiculous for them to maintain that they got ripped off in the government deal. The only people that I’ve seen with an unfulfilled moral claim (though not a legal one) are those who were injured due to vehicle defects and got their claims discharged in the bankruptcy.

    I’m not going to pretend that the bailout wasn’t based on political considerations, of course it was. Saving these jobs was the wise thing to do.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    By maintaining that the economy would have been better without the bailout, Romney is basically showing that he’s dumber than George W. Bush. Is it any wonder that Santorum has squirted up from behind and has Romney covered in Michigan?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “By maintaining that the economy would have been better without the bailout, Romney is basically showing that he’s dumber than George W. Bush.”

      It’s a safe position for him to take, because it does absolutely nothing to change the outcome. It’s a done deal, and he can’t undo it.

      He may as well campaign on whether the US should have fought in the War of 1812. As is the case with the bailout, it’s history, and it has nothing to do with him at all.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        The war of 1812 was completely unnecessary and illegal under the Constitution. I was talking to this dude at an Occupy rally, and he told me…

        j/k

      • 0 avatar
        ihatetrees

        The precedent of bailing out connected, unionized firms will change future incentives for investing in those firms and their competition. And yes, the same holds for other large institutions, like banks.

        The pro-bailout argument about jobs is true to a point. Yes, unionized autoworker jobs WERE saved, albeit at the expense of future (mostly non-union scum that don’t kick back to the Democratic Party) at Toyondissan transplants.

        There’s solid intellectual underpinnings against bailing out failed firms, from banks to automakers. David Skeel (U of PA) and Richard Epstein (U of Chicago) have done solid work in this area.

      • 0 avatar
        boltar

        Only problem being, now some Romney’s supporters think, ignore what he says to the freak radical right together elected, he would actually do the clever “right” thing – the progressive thing. And other supporters think, no, he’s actually sincerely promising that he’ll do exactly what he’s saying he’ll do to win those votes — the “right” thing, the hyper-conservative thing.

        And the reality is that no one on earth including Romney himself has a clue what the heck he’ll do once in office.

    • 0 avatar
      kenzter

      “squirted up from behind”
      LOL I see what you did there

  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    “Boasting of his Michigan roots,”

    Then Mitt drove off into the sunset in his 1974 AMC Ambassador Brougham.

    • 0 avatar
      acuraandy

      Now that’s funny. :)

      Just wondering, does any 25-30 something know who George Romney was? Or that Mitt was originally a Michiganian (is that how you say it?) and carpet-bagged to Massachusetts (ala Al Franken and YES, Norm Coleman)?

      What would George have done if AMC faced bankruptcy back in the 1960′s? Oh, right, a shotgun wedding decades later with Renault.

      Fiat/Chrysler anyone?

      • 0 avatar
        Educator(of teachers)Dan

        Pssssss… I’m only 34 yrs old, but I’ve been auto obsessed since I could toddle. And its Michigander just FYI.

        I’d love to see Mitt behind the wheel of a Kenosha Kadillac just for kicks. ;)

      • 0 avatar
        acuraandy

        How does a Rebel ‘The Machine’ jive? Or perhaps a Javelin or AMX?Now, THAT would be cool…if he did that I might just have to vote for him. Maybe…

  • avatar
    pgcooldad

    I’ll be voting on the Michigan Primary for “anybody but Mitt” just to screw this d-bag. He basically doesn’t care for me and my family. George Bush actually cared. Obama cared. Regardless of politics or affiliations these two men had some humanity to them.

    But Mitt can go screw himself for all I care!!

  • avatar
    jsal56

    Hey Pch 101 do explain to us “sheeple” what we do not understand about Obama’s bailout.

    Just for the record, I can’t stand Obama, but he does not try to cover up his true left of the lunatic fringe ideology, that said, Bush and Mittens do, they are Obama-Lite and that for me puts them in an entirely different category of loathsomeness.

    • 0 avatar
      YellowDuck

      If by “the lunatic fringe” you mean the tea party, yes, he’s left of that.

      When he actually successfully increases taxes paid by billionaires, hedge-fund managers and other such “wealth creators”, or proposes something as insane as actual universal, publicly-funded health care, or an increase in the gas tax, we can discuss how he might be left of some leader of some other industrialized country somewhere on the planet.

      Until then he is right wing. Just not as right wing as the other guys you get to choose from.

      • 0 avatar
        jsal56

        Yellow Dick Ahahahahahahahahhahahahahah

        You should take your comedy show to Vegas.

        A second Obama term= military coup and you will be the first up against the wall.

        Just saying.

      • 0 avatar
        racer-esq.

        The Keynesian corporate welfare and unskilled worker jobs program known as the US military needs wealth that comes from an open, free democracy to support the lifestyle to which it has become accustomed. I’m not expecting any economy destabilizing coups.

        Obama is a pro-military (much more than a true conservative like Ron Paul) centrist corporatist Rorschach test for racism and paraniod schizophrenia.

        Congratulations, you’ve passed.

      • 0 avatar
        Rada

        jsal56 :facepalm:

        It is almost painful to read…

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        jsal:
        Holy cow, man, I don’t care which side of the political spectrum we’re talking about, you are writing like a total lunatic.

    • 0 avatar
      boltar

      You know, Nixon was actually relatively a pretty excellent president, but he could never even make it through the first primary today because of all these know nothings would be calling him a communist. Well at least if they wanted to be consistent, and if they actually believe Obama is a socialist, rather than just throwing that term on anyone who they don’t care for much.

      Remember the boy who cried wolf. When the big bad real actual socialists come around, you’re not going to have any words to use, assuming your head doesn’t just explode at the sight of a genuine industry-nationalizing leftist. Orwell would be sickened by the spoiled brats that call themselves conservatives today. .

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        So the president who instituted failed wage-and-price controls, and whose economic policies led to stagflation, and whose actions regarding the dollar had several unintended consequences (including the rise in oil prices), and who enacted the stupid 55 mph speed limit, was a “pretty excellent” president?

        I can’t wait for you to explain to us how the AMC Pacer was a “pretty excellent” car.

        That should be as entertaining as the claims that GM only failed because of the financial crisis of 2008, and the Malibu was every bit as good as the Camry, and that we landed in this mess because of “deregulation.” In other words, pure comedy gold…

    • 0 avatar
      PJ McCombs

      Ironically, jsal, it’s been some time since I read a more articulate testimony that more public funding must be allocated to history and political science courses in public schools…

  • avatar
    Crosley

    Yes, it was crony capitalism. Where were the bailouts for Blockbuster Video, Borders, Circuit City, etc? Oh, that’s right, those jobs aren’t as valuable because the workers paychecks weren’t getting an automatic deduction that lined politicians’ pockets.

    When you have hundreds of millions going to a single political party, you better believe they’re going to make sure the checks keep coming. To hell if the company is actually viable or not.

    A bankruptcy would not have been the end of GM and Chrysler, no one can argue that with a straight face. This was all about keeping the status quo for the UAW.

  • avatar
    stuart

    I understand that many people are upset with the auto bailout, but I had understood that the Wall Street bailout was much bigger and more upsetting. According to this website, the Detroit bailout will cost the U.S. about $14 billion:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576361663907855834.html

    For comparison, AIG (an Wall Street related insurance company) soaked up $43 billion, and the total cost of the Wall Street bailouts may run over $1 trillion:

    http://66.39.128.35/index.php?title=Total_Wall_Street_Bailout_Cost

    (If the above links don’t work, I found them by Googling for “cost of auto bailout” and “cost of wall street bailout”.)

    IMHO, the Detroit bailout was a rounding error compared to the Wall Street bailout.

    stuart

    • 0 avatar
      imag

      Thank you for reminding people of this. It drives me crazy when the Republicans are acting like the $500 million Solyndra deal represents a massive expense when they won’t say a peep about the multi-*trillion* dollar Wall Street bailouts or Iraq war.

  • avatar
    vanpressburg

    Ford Canada’s labour costs highest in world
    artickle here:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/ford-canadas-labour-costs-highest-in-world-source/article1309720/

  • avatar
    ciddyguy

    Speaking of Mitt, there have been people who’ve exhaustively tried to get some dirt on Mitt, but come up clean, and I mean CLEAN. Mitt has left himself so ambiguous as to who he is, his past life, his job history and what he actually did at Baine since he wiped all that away sometime back.

    If you research, people who’ve had to deal with him find him so very disconnected and one way is he can’t hold a one to one conversation with someone and his small talk is severely stilted and he can’t even reply naturally without coming up with some stock reply he seems to use for all occasions and his expressions appear to be rather blank. He’s a strange bird indeed.

    Plus, he’s Republican and I’ve found that they tend to be more out of step of what we call, real life than any Democrat, not that the Dems are perfect, but geez, they at least have some kind of a grip on things.

    Add in the Republican’s going to bed with the Tea Party and other religious entities (Mitt being Mormon being just one), I’m not voting for any Republican unless someone truly outstanding were to joint the race (doubtful) and is clearly better than Obama. So at it stands, it’s Obama for me.

    Is Obama perfect? No, he isn’t but he’s the best we’ve got as far as I can tell.

    As to the bailouts are concerned, it’s a done deal and it looks to have been largely a success and what Mitt has written is just water over the dam now.

  • avatar
    Juniper

    Here’s a good response
    http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/mitt-romney-gets-wrong-detroit-automakers-bailouts-154006392.html

  • avatar
    korvetkeith

    The number or people defending crony capitalists and socialist policies makes me sad for our future.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      The number of people who think that America is in any danger of becoming a truly socialist state makes me sad for our present.

      • 0 avatar
        boltar

        On the up side, they’re doing a bang-up job of at least spelling “socialist,” though they clearly have no idea what it means.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Obama’s obviously a fascist.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        Indeed, his use of the police state to violently suppress domestic dissent, his militant nationalism, and his attempts to eliminate all private enterprise puts him about on par with Stalin. Thank God someone’s not afraid to tell it like it is.

      • 0 avatar
        acuraandy

        @Fetch: ‘Indeed, his use of the police state to violently suppress domestic dissent, his militant nationalism, and his attempts to eliminate all private enterprise puts him about on par with Stalin. Thank God someone’s not afraid to tell it like it is.’

        Not sure if thats sarcastic or not(?) So far, us contrarians haven’t been rounded up into deuce-and-a-halfs and shuffled off to FEMA camps. YET.

        Give it time, its in the works.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        Sarcasm.

        It’s a sad statement about our national dialogue when something intentionally written as over-the-top can be easily mistaken for a belief that a good portion of the country holds in earnest.

      • 0 avatar
        Zackman

        I’ve seen and photographed those new triple-level FEMA prison railcars a couple of years ago! There here! Oh, nooooooooo!

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    Just because you are clean and scandal-free, it doesn’t mean you deserve to be President.

    Canada’s labor costs are high because they are slower to race to the bottom. It wasn’t long ago that Chrysler stopped making minivans in the US because it was cheaper to make them in Canada thanks in large part to lower health care costs there. Last week, on the same day that Indiana adopted a right to work law, a Caterpiller subsidiary announced it was shutting down a plant in Canada to move the work to a non-union Indiana plant in Muncie. Racing to the bottom does attract jobs in the short run, but at what cost?

    Re: War of 1812, I think we ought to refight it. This time, when we invade Canada, I think we can take ‘em. They have grown weak with their cushy socialism.

    • 0 avatar
      acuraandy

      The only better ‘friend’ internationally that the US has other than Canada is Israel (maybe Japan…?). To even bring up a War of 1812 redux is just plain stupid. Canada and the US are very much economically tied (at least until we stop buying their oil, they sell to China, and China invades the US as ‘part’ of the UN).

      Jeez, how did I twist that so far around? I needs a vacation….:)

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      And yet, Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai all make cars here in the United States, despite our supposedly higher health care costs.

      And the southern states seems to be doing fine despite whining about the “race to the bottom.” (For future reference, it’s called, “Doing business in the real world,” because in the real world, customers demand better quality and lower prices, and having a unionized workforce doesn’t guarantee these things.)

      But I’m sure that those non-union transplant factories in the United States are going to turn into Victorian houses of horror straight out of a Dickens novel any day now. We’ve only been waiting for that to happen for the past 25-30 years…

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “Canada’s labor costs are high because they are slower to race to the bottom.”

      The issue is that companies such as Ford have to deal with a higher exchange rate.

      If the Canadian dollar was back to something closer to 85 cents or less, there wouldn’t be much cause for complaint. But at parity, it’s a different story.

  • avatar
    vanpressburg

    it was cheaper to make them in Canada thanks in large part to lower health care costs there.
    Yes, but many, many years ago !!!

    Canada has 11 times more medical authorities per 1000 people than Germany. 11x more !!!
    An there is not waiting list in Germany and there is waiting list
    in Canada. I live in Vancouver and I know many people who go to the US hospitals for surgery.

    • 0 avatar
      400 N

      I live in Ontario, and there are 1000′s of Ontario health cards held by US citizens who live in border states. They come up for regular visits for the free health care.

  • avatar

    Romney’s campaign slogan shold just be “Ignorance is bliss”.

    I don’t see him saying the same things about his biggest campaign contributors that were truly “bailed out” (Chase, Sachs, etc.)

  • avatar
    skor

    I can understand why the bailout happen. Had Chrysler and GM gone Tango Uniform at the same time, they would have dragged down the entire US OEM parts supply chain. Without that supply chain, Ford would have died, or skipped off to Europe. The foreign makers would have repatriated to their respective countries. Millions of people unemployed here in the US, cost of new cars would have skyrocketed. The economy would have gone into a death spiral.

    The problem with the bailout is that it required no structural reform of the auto business. If you’re “too big to fail”, you’re too big to exist. That’s the real crime behind all this bail out stuff. Money with no strings attached.

    • 0 avatar
      supersleuth

      So you think New GM is structurally unchanged from Old GM? Does it have the same array of brands? No. Is its labor cost structure unchanged? No. Does it have the same number of employees? No. Does it have the same number of dealers? No. So in what sense is your claim true?

  • avatar
    vanpressburg

    …1000′s of Ontario health cards held by US citizens who live in border states. They come up for regular visits for the free health care……
    “free” health care?
    There is no such a think as “free” health care !!!
    Canadian provinces pay more than 50% of their budget for health care.
    Gypsies from entire world are moving to Canada, because it is the most socialist country in the world, where they can abuse “free” health care system.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “Gypsies from entire world are moving to Canada, because it is the most socialist country in the world, where they can abuse “free” health care system.”

      You stay classy.

  • avatar
    vanpressburg

    …I live in Ontario, and there are 1000′s of Ontario health cards held by US citizens who live in border states. They come up for regular visits for the free health care…
    That is not a truth.
    You need to be Ontario permanent resident to get Ontario health card. That is the law. I never met one US citizen, who would try to obtain Canadian citizenship just because of health card and then he would cheat and pretend that he is living in Ontario just because of free health care. It would be a fraud.
    “1000′s of Ontario health cards held by US citizens” is a lie.

    When people buy smart phone they check FACTS- what is better for me iphone or android ?
    When health care is government thing, it becomes political issue and they don’t listen to facts. They just lie.
    And the same thing is happening to “government motors”. Once it becomes political issue, many people don’t want listen how many subsidies the government motors gets, they don’t listen to facts.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India